How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[skyblue888]

The interesting thing about the debate over creation vs evolution is that the overwhelming majority of us are creationists/evolutionists.

Let me explain what I mean by that. Many are creationists when it comes to the other evolutionists (re: the origin of the universe). They believe that God called the universe into existence simply by speaking the word only. They believe that "He spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast!" Psalm 33:6,9. But then they are evolutionists for the other creationists when it comes to redemption which is creation all over again! (as far as becoming light in the Lord).

In the beginning darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said,

"Let there be light! And there was light." Gen.1:3.

He spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast!

The Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul wrote, "For you were once darkness but now you are light in the Lord." Eph.5:8.

How did they become light in the Lord from being darkness?

Is it not because God called them from darkness into His marvelous light the same way He called light out of darkness in the beginning?

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9.

Did not God call the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to shine in the darkened void of their hearts? Yes He did.

On account of the merits of His infinite sacrifice, the Lord did call the light of His glory to shine into the darkened void of our hearts.

All those who come to God trusting wholly in the merits of the blood shed for them upon Calvary's cross for the forgiveness of sins may hear the voice of Him whose word can renew the soul unto everlasting life, for the Lord Himself has given the command:

"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor.4:6.

This is the creative word of God. It is so unto all and upon all them that believe. All who receive this divine oracle in faith immediately become new creatures in Christ Jesus. Old things have passed away and all things have become new. And the new life which is thus received is in like manner sustained, by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Every command of God written in the Bible is to be received as the creative voice of God. Received as such by faith, it imparts power, it begets life, even the life of the Infinite One!

God's word is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It has lost none of its power.

Let us be creationists now and forever.

sky

*The ten commandments are to be received as the creative word of God. When they are they become 10 exceedingly great and precious promises by which we may become partakers of the divine nature. See 2 Peter 1:4. "That law of ten precepts of the greatest love that can be presented to man is the voice of God from Heaven speaking to the soul in promise." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.1, p.1105 or Vol.7a, p.37.

[BobRyan]

Um, have a quick look in the Origins forum, where there's a thread I started with precisely that mission.

I could not find any point where the list of 6 or 7 examples in the OP here - with the detailed explanation showing the impact of evolutionism on each doctrine was addressed in your thread. (Also I think it went off int the direction of whether angels married humans in Gen 6 for some odd reason).

In fact I even asked about having the actual language of the 4th commandment reviewed to see IF the very details of the 7 day creation week were the focus or if the focus "in law" was the much more generic "God did something or other vague and undefined in creation but now hereby commands us to honor the Seventh day of a newly invented at Sinai - 7 day week simply by divine command". I asked that we look at the inconvenient details to see which way the text "of law" was actually written.

I don't think I got any takers.

In any case since this is the only thread with the complete detailed list of doctrines and implications is provided and waiting to be addressed, it makes sense to respond here and in context using quotes if possible to assist the reader.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

In all fairness to Bravus there was one small point taken from the OP that was addressed on that origins thread

OK, the claim that is often made is that if we believe in a God who created the universe and life over billions of years, having an active role in that creation but allowing the wisdom He had designed into the universe to play itself out through evolutionary mechanisms - a view that is in accordance with the empirical evidence we see around us in the world - that would undermine the doctrine of the Sabbath and the gospel/need for a Saviour, as well as the possibility of a Second Coming.

But would it? I don't believe so... I think people are tending to use that argument as a 'nuclear option' in the Origins debate, as a trump card to ensure that their side wins.

Let me try to lay it out:

If life on this earth evolved, there was no possibility of sin and temptation until consciousness arose. Sin is a choice as well as a condition, and until humanity became conscious sin could not occur. So if the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the fatal choice that the earliest thinking human beings on this planet made, that still means that there is sin and the need of a Saviour.

Under such a picture, the ordinary death of living things would of course have been happening for millions of generations - evolution cannot occur without it and life implies death [1]. What if the death that came in at the Fall was what SDAs know as the Second Death?

That is, even now the gospel does not save us from the First Death, the natural cessation of the body... but it does save us from the Second Death, eternal separation from God. Evolution says nothing about what happens to the soul/spirit/life after death, and an eternal afterlife is not anything that is contradicted by evolutionary theory. So if the death that came at the Fall is the Second Death, the evolution does not contradict the need for a Saviour and the possibility of redemption.

So then life, death, the Fall, life after death, the plan of Salvation - all plausible under a theistic evolutionary view of life.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post265846

In Romans 5 - through one man's sin death spread to ALL men, and "death reigned in all from Adam until Moses" -- can only be the first death -- since we know that not all from Adam to Moses are to be cast into the Lake of fire.

But you make a good point in highlighting the fact that theistic evolutionism would demand a horrific tooth-and-claw bloody existence in the "garden of Eden" where advancement and "creation" was done through disease, predation and starvation of one species leading to the next.

Also your point about the "earliest THINKING human beings on this planet" made a bad choice and so now the Son of God has to die -- and all mankind is doom to roast in the lake of fire ... paints God as equally horrific to the "quality of life" sufferred by Adam and Eve "in the garden" for it means that he took the lowest most non-thinking form of humanity and based on that hominid "having a bad thought while bashing in his monkey brain breakfast one morning" ALL mankind must suffer the 2nd death!!

The conflicted results of theistic evolutionism are sooo very strained -- no wonder Darwin himself stated that he finally "gave up imagining" ways to marry his darwinist doctrines to the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Now Bravus if we compare your single short statement quoted above to just TWO of the 28 FB doctrines raised for review in the OP of this thread (and quoted below for the convenience of the reader) -- we find a whole list of points brought out below that are not even addressed in that brief statement of yours above. Hence my thinking that this thread is the only place to actually get those points addressed as posted.

====================================================

6. Creation:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ``very good,'' declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

[skyblue888]

The interesting thing about the debate over creation vs evolution is that the overwhelming majority of us are creationists/evolutionists.

Let me explain what I mean by that. Many are creationists when it comes to the other evolutionists (re: the origin of the universe). They believe that God called the universe into existence simply by speaking the word only. They believe that "He spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast!" Psalm 33:6,9. But then they are evolutionists for the other creationists when it comes to redemption which is creation all over again! (as far as becoming light in the Lord).

In the beginning darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said,

"Let there be light! And there was light." Gen.1:3.

He spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast!

The Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul wrote, "For you were once darkness but now you are light in the Lord." Eph.5:8.

How did they become light in the Lord from being darkness?

Is it not because God called them from darkness into His marvelous light the same way He called light out of darkness in the beginning?

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9.

Did not God call the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to shine in the darkened void of their hearts? Yes He did.

On account of the merits of His infinite sacrifice, the Lord did call the light of His glory to shine into the darkened void of our hearts.

All those who come to God trusting wholly in the merits of the blood shed for them upon Calvary's cross for the forgiveness of sins may hear the voice of Him whose word can renew the soul unto everlasting life, for the Lord Himself has given the command:

"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor.4:6.

This is the creative word of God. It is so unto all and upon all them that believe. All who receive this divine oracle in faith immediately become new creatures in Christ Jesus. Old things have passed away and all things have become new. And the new life which is thus received is in like manner sustained, by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Every command of God written in the Bible is to be received as the creative voice of God. Received as such by faith, it imparts power, it begets life, even the life of the Infinite One!

God's word is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It has lost none of its power.

Let us be creationists now and forever.

sky

*The ten commandments are to be received as the creative word of God. When they are they become 10 exceedingly great and precious promises by which we may become partakers of the divine nature. See 2 Peter 1:4. "That law of ten precepts of the greatest love that can be presented to man is the voice of God from Heaven speaking to the soul in promise." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.1, p.1105 or Vol.7a, p.37.

I am afraid this post was lost in the shuffle.

Any comment? would like to have your thoughts on this. Thanks.

sky

[BobRyan]

I agree that the creative power of God's Word resulting in instant "new creation" is the model that we see in scripture not just for making life on earth -- but for the New Birth John 3, the New Creation 2Cor 5 and even the resurrection 1Cor 15.

I also agree with you that the John 1 act of God "bringing light into the world" was sudden and instantaneous through Christ - rather than a process of 100's of millions of years.

Notice that the Bible does not predict that the lost will "eventually evolve into the new creation" by trying to be good for soooo many thousands of years that eventually they are born again.

But your post brings up another hugely significant point from places like Isaiah 45:5-12, 18-22 which is what I call the "spiritual lesson of Sabbath" where God repeatedly connect His divine fiat instant word creation with His role as Savior - and as you point out -- He connects that with His "I do not change" attribute for He is the "same yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8.

There are a great many theistic evolutionists who would "like" to find a way to keep the Gospel and salvific aspects of scripture while surgically removing the "Genesis details" about God's instant divine fiat creation model so often appealed to in scripture as "God spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast" Ps 33:6-9

That kind of theistic evolutionist would certainly want all the salvifiic segments to stay in -- somehow.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

I agree that the creative power of God's Word resulting in instant "new creation" is the model that we see in scripture not just for making life on earth -- but for the New Birth John 3, the New Creation 2Cor 5 and even the resurrection 1Cor 15.

I also agree with you that the John 1 act of God "bringing light into the world" was sudden and instantaneous through Christ - rather than a process of 100's of millions of years.

Notice that the Bible does not predict that the lost will "eventually evolve into the new creation" by trying to be good for soooo many thousands of years that eventually they are born again.

But your post brings up another hugely significant point from places like Isaiah 45:5-12, 18-22 which is what I call the "spiritual lesson of Sabbath" where God repeatedly connect His divine fiat instant word creation with His role as Savior - and as you point out -- He connects that with His "I do not change" attribute for He is the "same yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8.

There are a great many theistic evolutionists who would "like" to find a way to keep the Gospel and salvific aspects of scripture while surgically removing the "Genesis details" about God's instant divine fiat creation model so often appealed to in scripture as "God spoke and it was! He commanded and it stood fast" Ps 33:6-9

That kind of theistic evolutionist would certainly want all the salvifiic segments to stay in -- somehow.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob. I believe we are on the same wave length. Praise God. Yes especially the passages in Isaiah 45:18-22 speak clearly. "I the Lord speak righteousness." "The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness."

Now compare these verses with Isaiah 48:18.

sky

[Twilight]

Bravus :-)

I have a mysterious email in my inbox, stating something about "slurring" and "moderating", I presume it was an error, as I no longer see it here?

Mark

[Bravus]

Yeah, sorry about that: I cautioned you about some strong language you used in this thread, acting as a moderator, then realised that although we're talking Origins we're not actually in the Origins forum and I'm not the moderator here, so I withdrew the post. Apologies for the confusion.

[Bravus]

Bob, I *could* do a line-by-line response to your OP in this thread, I guess, but I have two papers to write and an award to apply for today, and I don't have a lot of time.

Plus I already know the reception such a post will receive here, so I'm disinclined to spend the hour or more it would take to write...

One of the reasons I chose to address the same issues in a different thread in the Origins forum is that these are large, philosophical issues, and it helps to be able to lay out a clear framework within which to address them, rather than to simply respond piecemeal. Doing the latter means implicitly accepting the framework of the original poster, and I don't wish to do that because I think that on this issue your framework is flawed.

Suffice it to say that you massively overstate or mis-state many of the beliefs and attitudes of a theistic evolutionist - and that perhaps that's not surprising since there are many kinds of theistic evolutionists and you tend to characterise only the ones that describe God as having the most 'hands off' role in creation.

So, bottom line? I don't have time today to respond line-by-line to your OP in this thread, and certainly not to the 28. But you're very welcome to respond to the substantive points raised in my thread in the Origins forum, if you choose to do so - or not.

[skyblue888]

The Random House College Dict defines "deism" as the belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to His creation. In other words, that God has set everything in motion and that it has been going on of itself ever since and without His interference.

Theistic evolution is the belief that God brought the world into existence but that ever since things have been evolving for aeons of time.

Both theories are what they are, "false science."

The Bible alone teaches true science: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth... Let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of Him. For He spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast." Psalm 33:6-9.

And it is by that same Word, the living Word, that He upholds all things. "Upholding all things by the Word of His power." Hebrews 1:3.

And the Word is Spirit and life. It is by the Spirit that Christ, the Living Word, the Originator of all things, is present everywhere and working in and through all, moving in all things according to His will (Hebrews 4:12) for "In Him all things hold together." Col.1:17.

sky

[Bravus]

Quote:

Theistic evolution is the belief that God brought the world into existence but that ever since things have been evolving for aeons of time.

Nope. See, this is the whole problem: people claiming to be able to critique things they don't properly understand.

Theistic evolution includes at least these possible positions, and no doubt many more:

1. God set off the Big Bang and that was the end of his involvement - this is not even really so much theistic evolution as... deism.

2. God set off the Big Bang, and also intervened to miraculously create the first self-replicating lifeforms on earth.

3. God set off the Big Bang, set in place the physical rules of the universe and guided the formation of galaxies, solar systems and planets, then set off life and directed its development. Life shows evidence of this direction (Intelligent Design).

4. God specially created all of the universe, including the earth, and placed simple life on earth, allowing the rules and procedures he had put in place to cause life to develop in its full complexity over several billion years.

5. God specially created earth, and life, quite recently, but allowed natural processes of adaptation to change the earth from its death-free Edenic state to the current world we see around us with highly evolved predator-prey relationships in ecosystems (many recent creationists actually ascribe to this).

6. And so on...

[Guest]

Which one do you ascribe to Bravus?

[Bravus]

I've said it a fair few times here already, but you're fairly new, Richard, so I'll say it again: I have no firm position on Origins. Wish I did, it would make life so much easier, but there's so much evidence, and I at least know enough to know how much I don't know. If I had to pick one of the above it might be somewhere between 3 or 4, but I would hold that very tentatively indeed. I'm always in search of a synthesis that fully honours and incorporates all the best evidence from both science (and by that I simply mean our organised and careful observations of the world around us) and the Bible. And, to borrow from U2: "I still haven't found what I'm looking for..."

[Guest]

Thanks, but why not just believe what the Bible says? Do you believe in heaven?

[Bravus]

Two things:

1. I am a scientist and science educator. I find it impossible to simply ignore - or, as do so many creationists, distort - the evidence I see in the world around me. It is impossible to really understand the science and still believe the world is 6000 years old, unless you *also* believe God actively set out to deceive us. I am willing to discuss that issue with anyone, any time.

2. I seriously, honestly, after appropriate reading and study, do not believe 'what the Bible says' is as clear and simple as you seem to believe. This is something on which we'll just have to disagree - but I still wish all of you guys would be willing to say 'my interpretation of the Bible' rather than 'the Bible', just as a gesture of modesty and honesty.

[Guest]

I see. Looks like you're faced with a pretty big problem.

[Lutz13]

2. I seriously, honestly, after appropriate reading and study, do not believe 'what the Bible says' is as clear and simple as you seem to believe. This is something on which we'll just have to disagree - but I still wish all of you guys would be willing to say 'my interpretation of the Bible' rather than 'the Bible', just as a gesture of modesty and honesty.

Bravus, the problem here is that the story of Adam and Eve is woven throughout the bible. To throw the story of creation out, you may as well toss everything else out. It really isn't something you can just pick and choose.

Example:

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."(Luke 3:38)

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam who is a type of Him who was to come."(Romans 5:14)

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."(1 Corinthians 15:22)

"And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."(1 Corinthians 15:45)

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgressions."(1 Timothy 2:13-14)

"If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom."(Job 31:33)

There are many many more. You say there is plenty of evidence out there. That I do not disagree with. Yet you have two sides looking at the same rock and both coming to their own conclusions based upon their bias. You may say the world looks old, but do you know what it looked like at creation? So how can you make such a statement? Lets not forget the world was cursed as well.

[Lutz13]

I think the real problem here is that man in all his pride needs physical evidence. Man doesn't want to have faith in something because he just might be labeled as believing in fairy tales.(I was in this boat before) Though I could be wrong, just my personal thoughts.

God proves Himself to all men, if they would just ask Him.

"Oh taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trust in Him"(Psalm 34:8)

[Bravus]

See, ascription of bad motives, yet again: 'pride'.

As I've said, for me it's not pride, it's just honesty.

You wrote:

Quote:

Yet you have two sides looking at the same rock and both coming to their own conclusions based upon their bias. You may say the world looks old, but do you know what it looked like at creation? So how can you make such a statement? Lets not forget the world was cursed as well.

Again, really look at the science, really understand the science, and you will see that these comments all make no sense. The evidence is *not* equally interpretable from either perspective. The scientific perspective is a clear, logical, self-consistent system of explanations based on observation. To the extent that the creationist perspective does try to explain the evidence it does it with a mishmash of inconsistent ad hoc fixes and twists, like an accelerated rate of radioactive decay, and then uses the Flood to explain everything else.

I challenge *anyone* to really understand the science properly and still find the explanations of 'creation scientists' at all convincing.

It is only through cherishing ignorance about the science that it is possible to continue to believe the things you have said in the quote above. And that's why education is considered a curse...

[Guest]

That's not true, I know scientists who believe what I do.

[Bravus]

Scientists in the relevant fields who have looked at the relevant evidence? I know there are quite a lot of creationist and young-earth physicists and chemists, but biologists and geologists are much more rare, because they understand the relevant evidence.

[Lutz13]

See, ascription of bad motives, yet again: 'pride'.

As I've said, for me it's not pride, it's just honesty.

You wrote:

Quote:

Yet you have two sides looking at the same rock and both coming to their own conclusions based upon their bias. You may say the world looks old, but do you know what it looked like at creation? So how can you make such a statement? Lets not forget the world was cursed as well.

Again, really look at the science, really understand the science, and you will see that these comments all make no sense. The evidence is *not* equally interpretable from either perspective. The scientific perspective is a clear, logical, self-consistent system of explanations based on observation. To the extent that the creationist perspective does try to explain the evidence it does it with a mishmash of inconsistent ad hoc fixes and twists, like an accelerated rate of radioactive decay, and then uses the Flood to explain everything else.

I challenge *anyone* to really understand the science properly and still find the explanations of 'creation scientists' at all convincing.

It is only through cherishing ignorance about the science that it is possible to continue to believe the things you have said in the quote above. And that's why education is considered a curse...

Right, and you weren't there to see it happen. So you take it in faith. Just like I take scripture in faith.

[Bravus]

sigh

[Guest]

If understanding science would cost me my faith in God, or cause it to weaken in any way, then I don't need to understand science.